- Employment contract question – Seems dodge
So, quick background.
Mrs Scandal has a new job at a new practice (Veterinary) and the owner has given her an employment booklet with various strange and in my experience unreasonable sections that she is to adhere to, the one below being of main concern due to the value of some of the equipment that is used.
Can anyone tell me if the below section is enforceable?
“Any damage, missing cash /stock or equipment damage even caused by incorrect maintenance, is payable by the person caused the damage. If the management is not notified and no responsible person found the cost of repair or replacement will be deducted equally from all staff salary. Therefore each member of the staff is responsible for maintaining equipments and protect the stock or any property belonging to the business”
I understand the need to protect equipment but things malfunction, shit happens. Surely it is not enforceable that staff will have to pay for breakages out of wages?
CheersPosted 2 years agospooky_b329Member
Good excuse to show her this thread! http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/have-you-ever-walked-out-of-a-job-interview
My sister-in-law is a vet and they do seem to try and screw you over at every turn, such as scheduling in 24/7 on call over a weekend and then expecting you to turn up for a regular shift on Monday, with a day off later in the week. Any sensible employer would give the day off immediately after the on call period to allow some rest. Or excluding staff from working for any other practise within 30 miles.Posted 2 years agoJunkyardMember
IMHO its unenforceable to make employees pay for things that break when things wear out or when anyone steals them [ unless they catch the thief]
All businesses have theft
IME even if they do something truly incompetent then the employer still cannot make the employees pay for what happens as it is still the employers responsibility to make sure you are competent.
I would enquire to see if it is ever used if it is I would tell them to go away
It’s enforceable if the staff sign up to it
they cannot have contract law that breaks the law so this is too simplistic a view. You cannot have a contract with no holidays for example I cannot remember the actual law that applies here but IIRC they just cannot deduct wages of stff due to the companies losses however incurredPosted 2 years agomakecoldplayhistoryMember
It makes no difference if it’s signed or not. Wages can’t be docked for this reason.
There was an almost identical question on a (in-house) exam I took becoming a bar manager. The practice owner would have to take someone to court to claim back for broken equipment, stolen property etc.
If I was your wife and I wanted the job, I’d sign it knowing it can’t be enforced rather than flat-out refuse before I’m employed / the probationary period is up.Posted 2 years agoMcHamishMember
I would challenge that rather than accept it as unenforceable and do nothing.
If in the future they decide to dock her wages because an expensive piece of equipment breaks, it’s probably going to be much harder retrieving that missing money than getting the owner to change the booklet.
Basically the owner doesn’t need to bother to pay for expensive maintenance contracts as they’re planning to take any repair costs from their employees anyway.Posted 2 years ago
Thanks for the responses, most confirm my thoughts that it would be unenforceable.
Regarding taking the money from wages directly, I’m sure that would be illegal and if actually happened would result in a trip to court.
I think there is a certain amount lost in translation as the head vet and owner is from overseas, there may be certain aspects that are part of daily employment law in his country of origin that don’t apply here.
See how we goPosted 2 years agogeetee1972Member
jeez, what a place!! It’s as if Victorian workplace practices were still order of the day.
It’s not the first time I’ve heard that accusation levelled at the veterinarian industry. I have a friend who works as a vet at someone else’s practise and the horror stories she brings back about unreasonable behaviour, the expectations of working hours, the pressure they are put under and the demands made of them (the vest) are incredulous. One explanation seems to be that the cost of entry for starting up your own practise is so incredibly high (because you have to kit out a mini-operating theatre in essence) that those investing such a large amount of money end up being incredibly protective of it and subsequently expecting blood in return for employment.Posted 2 years ago
The topic ‘Employment contract question – Seems dodge’ is closed to new replies.